[rfc-i] Numbering and counting things (was: Re: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt)

Ted Lemon mellon at fugue.com
Wed Jun 25 09:02:09 PDT 2014


On Jun 25, 2014, at 7:53 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com> wrote:
>> When we're writing a spec, IMO the text ought to be normative,
>> and the  text alone ought to be sufficient (even if tedious).
> 
> And that, in a sentence, is one of two major problems with
> declaring that the marked-up (xml2rfc) version is normative and
> that none of the normally-human-readable presentation versions
> are.

We have to trust (and verify) that the tools produce human-readable output that accurately represents what is in the actual XML.   We've discussed how to do this at length—it's not a new question to us.   Indeed, the IESG had a discussion with Heather present on the topic of whether or not diagrams are normative, because we had the same concern.   What consensus arose, which was not terribly solid, is that we can't assume that the diagrams are not normative, and that we ought to address the accessibility issues that are implicit in that statement.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list